president of the brady campaign to prevent gun violence. they speak, craig whitney latest book, "living with guns." in it, the foreign correspondent asked for his history of firearms in american society and proposes an end to the culture war over cards. it is about an hour. >> host: craig whitney come you've worked for "the new york times," then it are chief reporter around the world. you're an organist can especially speedy written a book on organ music. living with guns, how did you come to this topic? >> safely because i lived abroad for so many years. i would often be asked by friends in those countries, what is it the united states and americans and guns? what he is such a love affair with guns is the way some of them was sometimes put it. i do my best to explain, but

they realized they didn't know myself, so i thought when i retired, when i time i would try to do some research and find out why we have the second amendment and how has it been understood during all the years it's been enforced in the book was the result. >> host: read the book with interest. you cover the history, legal battles, what's going on current day. let's go through a lot of back and starting with the history. with surprise to many of the american history insolvable guns plater didn't play. >> guest: i grew up in massachusetts in the 50s and of course he made a big thing of thanksgiving and not this weekend squanto and so on and delete this story ran in schools when we learned about it was the pilgrims came and they were friendly with the indians have

celebrated the first thanksgiving and everything was hunky dory. will you read the history of the event and the colonies in massachusetts and you find the relations between native americans and the new english settlers who came and were anything but much of the time. you have massacres on both sides and tremendous hostility, understandable because native americans that the land belonged to them and lo and behold -- >> that is certainly a surprise to me. i know there have been some questions raised by other historians about whether the colonists really had as many guns as people nowadays say they did. but you look back at history and find guns were very important. if you are a white male over the age of 18, you were practically required to have a firearm and

produce it when called upon to defend your town or your state. anybody that was going to take the risk of crossing the ocean? just go there is a comment moderated england that allow people to have firearms for self defense and other purposes and that right travel across the ocean with the colonists and they needed the guns here worse in england mostly they didn't. so people soon came to have an enormous facility and knowledge of firearms and of course as we all know, it produced the results of it. against the most powerful military country in the world at the time in the revolutionary war. >> host: to talk about that. people get hazy views on history and it comes from movies or tv

about it this time. when we have the revolutionary period, what was the role of guns in these militias are requirements are talked about? >> guest: george washington didn't think a whole lot of the militia. he pressed about it at times, but he also had made remarks that allowed off the militia was a useful thing to have feared it could have built the continental army that the existence of the militias and people who would than in militias and more importantly volunteers and others who knew how to use firearms and that was key. >> host: said people were using it on the frontier, protections against the native americans, hunting certainly am in the colonies, some sense of responsibility for the common good. as to exactly. the common moderate to have and use firearms became the pacific duty to use them and called upon. >> host: who was in charge of

malicious? >> guest: local commander towns very often have them, new england certainly. later on they became more broadly based. but as tensions and hostilities mounted between the british authorities in the colonists and the approach to the revolutionary war, he was seen by many of the leaders at the time as an advantage that we americans knew how to use firearms. >> host: at this time, was to organize one person in these communities are with this group of volunteers to militias on first and? >> guest: depends on the side of the town. there weren't armed policeman's running around in places like boston, but it was mostly locally based as i understand it. i'm not the world's greatest expert on prerevolutionary

history, but it certainly was a sense of duty to serve in the militia when you are called upon. >> host: i know in american history to shot their brain around the world, lexington concorde, everybody knows a little bit about that, but your book touches on this just a little bit, but it's still little confusing historically to me. the british were actually marching on the armory because a lot of the guns and ammunition i assume were stored at the armory, a communal place for the guns and ammunition. they were marching there and that's upon reviewing to warn folks about. >> guest: the minutemen came out and try to resist them and did successfully. >> host: in my mind the armory talks about this common usage, common purpose, which i know is that necessarily --

>> guest: it's not necessarily a contradiction. for instance, if he didn't have a gun initiative pattern according to the militia requirements in one of these towns, the town is sometimes provided to you. they would then bill you for it, so anything for this private property even if they assigned it the weapon. but sure, the malicious, they needed to keep a supply of firearms and ammunition for those occasions when lots of forces needed to do with the indian attack or whatever was. so they did have storage facilities and primaries. >> host: back then there were restrictions in regards to gun in usage of guns. >> guest: and just take a step further from the armory is. if there were armories, there were also listed militia men,

right? so authorities knew who was then and who had come and what kind of guns they had. so when you hear today come the people resist the idea that a registry of firearms. they had it in the colonies on a local level. there's always been some kind of regulation. >> host: so we go from this history to the revolutionary were successful, articles of confederation, so were starting to read the constitution. this is what the second amendment comes in. how did that'll develop? >> guest: nowadays it's become fashionable among people who support gun rights strongly to pick out this or that a quotation from this or that leader like samuel adams or thomas jefferson or thomas jefferson or whether an implied that the second amendment was basically seen as a way to enable individuals to defend themselves and defend themselves

against the government when it became tyrannical. that is a misunderstanding. it was a political matter, the second amendment. that's partly what what became the bill of rights. the reason for it is after the unhappy experience of the articles of confederation, but the founders to figure out a better way of governing this country, they came up with the constitution, which as we know is full of checks and balances, but as was submitted to the states for ratification, it became clear that they might not get the nine states they needed unless their promises but still more controls over the potential for the federal government overstepping its powers and crashing the states, which was not the object. so the agreement was to come up with a set of amendments to it. and make that the first order of

business when congress convened. but that promise when they did get the nine states to ratify and it went into effect in congress that it may be the first thing they started discussing this amendment. to make a long story short, instead of sprinkling them into this or that provision of the articles of the constitution, but ended up as the bill of rights and the first 10 amendments and the second was none of them. they didn't create anything new. they simply recognized a right of assert a pair can connect to doubt that the political for it, which was to ensure that the states could keep their militias, even if the federal government had a standing army to wish everyone at the time that would be the worst idea possible. that could lead to tierney. this was seen as a check against that kind of tyranny, a

deterrent if you will to a tyrannical federal leader who could try to take over the country. >> host: is there any question of self-defense are hunting? >> guest: very little. the amendment doesn't say anything about self-defense. if this is a well regulated militia being necessary to defend for the pre-state, the existing right shall not be infringed. >> guest: a lot of arguments over that over the years. in terms of the tyrannical government, what did the founders seem to be thinking of? >> guest: of course they were coming out of the experience of the war against the british, so obviously the attempt to impose tyranny with the british army was in their minds. but they've been through this a

few years the confederation. >> host: a bit of everybody to massachusetts. >> guest: they did. they had troops traveled to answer the call to go fight. so they thought, you'll see there are quotations especially from john out of, who makes it clear they were not trying to create a situation for individuals who didn't like the central government could go up with an arsenal somewhere and hold off the fence and they came. >> guest: that's not the way the founders saw it. they saw this strictly as a means of preserving the state's abilities to keep their militias going into in place. jonathan says that one point that the militia is always subservient to the state. it's not a rebellious

institution. >> host: even after the constitution is the top did in washington sipc at the whiskey tax on whiskey rebellion. how did they respond to that? >> guest: that went better than shays rebellion did. but sure, they recognized that they needed a strong federal power and they needed checks to ensure the states have powers as well. >> host: overtime during the 1800, 1900 continue to have guns play a role in society particularly on the frontier. any surprises in that area? guest at the main surprise to me was gun-control the wild west, plenty of guns they are and in

reality you do couldn't carry a gun around in a town -- there were lots of guns. you had to deposit your arms. if you're a cowboy who came from the plains, there's a place where you you supposed to sort your pistol if you had one. >> guest: that doesn't fit with the way most people think about it. >> guest: this is of course in settlements, not in the wild prairie. but they are like towns everywhere today. you need is that the law and order and it's hard to keep up with that if everyone is pulling out of pistol. >> host: even in shootout at ok corral. >> guest: is started up because site claims it had been arrested or accused of violating the local ordinance that for big carrying a firearm around town.

incidentally the understanding of work on race were four began to evolve in the century and in particular this. in the early 19th century was a big problem with tools between gentlemen. the most famous is between aaron burr and hamilton. but this tooling was fairly common, but it was frowned upon and could be prosecuted and burr had to keep it around to avoid being prosecuted. and so, one of the means that the people who insisted on being able to settle matters of honor on the spot dirty to do in the early 19th century was carry small pistols concealed. this was seen by gentlemen as

cowardly. if you cannot be a man can wear your pistol on your hip and don't sneakily carry it around and say turcotte. so that began to change. >> host: was still holds true today. most places don't have restrictions on open carrying of guns, but there are places to do on concealed guns. but it goes back to the historical sense but the coward was the guy with the concealed gun, whereas if you have them in your holster >> guest: a state like vermont has no rules practically at all about that. but anyway, he had the same issues. >> host: --

>> guest: whites in the south again to see personal firearms is the name of defending themselves slave rebellions that they needed to. later on as we approached the civil war and abolition became a strong esmond, abolitionists wanted to provide guidance to supporters of no slavery in kansas and vice versa. so they wanted to supply arms so they could defend themselves against attacks by their opponents. after the war, the ku klux klan and groups like that arose and they were persecuting freedmen, freed likes in the blacks began to look for ways to defend themselves. the federal government tried to institute new state militias and some of the southern states and whites wouldn't serve and not a black spot on as a way of

self-defense. >> host: guns play role in our history. what is legal understanding of those times? with their restrictions? is that unconstitutional or just a political battle we fought out but it's an urban area or city in the frontier trying to get its act together? >> guest: oddly, courts didn't have much to say except in state courts were for the most part are we going baystate and lower federal courts supported the right and saw it as not a rate that belonged to criminals are to be used for criminal purposes, but more as a write-in connection to civic duty. but the supreme court didn't say anything about the second amendment for about a century. they mentioned it briefly in a

ruling in 1876 and that was u.s. versus cruickshank, which rose out of the horrible massacre, one of the worst in the reconstruction. , with the whole war, blacks had tried to defend themselves in louisiana and were attacked by white crowds and the federal government attempted to prosecute the attackers on the grounds that they had deprived the blacks who were killed -- >> host: mna type issue. >> guest: didn't find that was the case. at that time we don't see any racial motivation at all to deprive blacks of their very specifically. in a kind of a side, the ruling

said that the right to keep and bear arms in the second amendment was not a right granted by the constitution. it was a preexisting right. so if there is any application that courts later extended that if it applied to anybody, who is the federal government. so it's a limitation on federal governments to tell certain classes. >> host: that's how most of the bill of rights is interpreted. but it only applied to the federal government unless specifically incorporated to the states. >> we didn't get on the second amendment until 2010 follow-up decision. >> host: how about in the 1900s? you got the prohibition era, you've got john dillinger. >> guest: prohibition produced

organized crime and g-man and elliott mas and all of that. the first real federal gun control measure that came into effect as a result of that. >> host: 1934 firearms. >> guest: exactly. that was held up by the supreme court, where somebody had challenged application of the how could she be denied the right to have a machine gun and the supreme court said unless you can demonstrate this is the relationship between having a machine in private hands, preservation of the well-regulated militia, doesn't seem to have any application. that ruling was on interpreted to mean the supreme court that there is no individual right to have firearms, that she had to

be in some kind of a relationship to a militia or the national guard or whatever for the military to exercise your right. >> host: 1938 is a long time ago and that was the law of the land until to 2008. what change during that time. >> guest: instantly the 1934 firearms act is still enforced. >> host: i was pointed out that shows how gun control can work. you don't see many bank robberies with machine guns anywhere. they have been, but they're serious restrictions and it seems to have worked. >> host: all of our polling gun massacres, none of them committed with a fully automatic weapon. >> guest: you had the firearms that an importantly in the 1960s have been and all the racial and social turbulence of the 60s and the assassinations

of president kennedy, his brother, martin luther king, eventually produced another gun control act, and in 1868 gun control act. their support for that even in the leadership of the nra at the time. charlton heston even subscribe to a statement was read another hollywood tough guy, calling for some kind of regulation to prevent the repetition of these crimes as horrible as these assassinations. but i think with a lot of gun control measures, you support them in california. ronald reagan supported a gun-control measure because panthers are running around with guns in the state legislature sacramento. that's a lot that made it impossible to do that and

imposed a waiting period on the time you needed between applying for a hand guns and actually being able to buy it. people say that lott will certainly stop the black panthers, but that law doesn't apply just to black panthers. eventually they backlash. well you know the social and political backlash to a lot of the things that happened and i think gun control is one of them. >> host: the 68 act dealt mainly with prohibited purchasers. so it was insane if you are a felon or habitual drug user or dishonorably discharged, mentally dangerous, they use different terminology, but went through a list of eight or nine sections of people that shouldn't be a debate guns. >> guest: but at the time it took a long time to do those

checks and eventually that was replaced with a system we have now, which is fully automated and the fbi runs to check system. >> host: actually the way over for the 25 year period was in effect the honor system. unh by god and they said are you a felon? if you said no come you got to buy your gun. >> guest: to 68 act would allow people to lie and get away with it and that wasn't changed until the brady act. msn and acs came in. >> host: said the nra supporting things, 68 act, republicans supporting it. when did the nra change and how did that mindset become different here? >> guest: interestingly, it came a sort of a surprise to me to learn that the ira was originally founded by two former

"new york times" supporters. but what they were concerned about was being prepared for national defense like the first world war and making sure we had enough people in the country who knew had used firearms that we would be defeated if it came to a war. >> host: when i was going to pick up my marksmanship badges that ymca camp. i kept those badges, too. i kept those badges, too. i was a different nra. >> guest: the nra still does a lot of worthwhile training and certifying of ability to use firearms safely, that they became polluted we the leadership that had approved the 68 gun control act was overthrown and replaced by others but eventually charlton heston became a spokesman for that faction and now we have way montpelier firmly in the saddle

and politically is a different organization from what it was in 1960. clearly. it's also been able to raise huge amounts of money and because maybe the most powerful lobby here in washington and it plays basically in the backlash of people's fears. if crime is rising and police can't do anything about it, how are we going to keep ourselves from being robbed, murdered and so on. when he firearms in the nra has been playing on that line for many years. >> guest: is crime is rising in the 80s and early 90s, crack and more sophisticated god, congress acted again. really only the third time they reacted. the brady bill and the assault weapon ban. how does that fit into the

chronology? >> guest: well, you had the attempted assassination of president reagan. took in 10 years to come around to supporting a stronger measure. he eventually did of course, the brady bill. he wrote an op-ed in "the new york times," which i'm sure everybody in the nra has forgotten about, but i talk about this in the book, saying we need some kind of like the one i signed up as governor of california that makes people go through waiting period before they can acquire handguns. and i think the assault weapons ban, which came out later was more emotional than brielle. if you look at violent crimes committed with guns in our cities today or then, these

assault weapons that look like m-16s or ak-47s did not figure in this importantly. those are mostly handguns or pistols. but assault weapons looks scary and they think they are easy to scare people about. they have figured of course just fortunately in this gun massacres like aurora and others, but even many of them are committed with semi automatic pistols and large capacity magazines, which was part of the assault weapons ban. >> host: many people don't understand the difference. >> guest: well, pull the trigger each time it fires a bullet and one comes into the

chamber and you're ready to fire again. same with semi automatic pistol. seminomadic salt but then means you squeezed the trigger each time to fire. but she can't go -- >> host: fully automatic you hold and it keeps firing. >> host: but if you have a magazine with a hundred on, like the movie theater batman episode, and get a lot although his magazine jammed couldn't get off 100 rounds. >> host: the tucson shooter with diabetes result are doing rounds and he got this off in 15 seconds. >> host: then he was prevented to the vote. >> guest: >> host: we had brady bell, assault weapons ban

>> guest: when the momentum behind keeping the ban ran out to present bush was in office instead of bill clinton. so there may be some move to breathe and care. i found in doing research on the book that violent gun crime did not go down significantly from the automatic assault weapons ban was in effect. that doesn't prove it had no effect, but statistically. >> host: it didn't ban the sales, but sure that you keep old ones. you look at it. it is due that many difference. >> host: if you reinstated the ban now would have the same grandfather clauses about weapons previously purchased his outfit would it really be?

a lot of times liberals, and i called the book is a gross case of the second amendment, making the mistake of thinking strict gun control is the way you control gun violence. i think if you could eliminate all 300 million guns in this country, legal and illegal, surely gun violence would go down. but we're not going to be able to do that. instead what happens is in places like new york where i live, overwhelmingly to support to make it as difficult as possible for everybody to buy gun legally be seen as the best way to keep gun violence down. it doesn't work because criminals don't bother with getting the license are registering guns. the way to try to control that, and it will never be possible to

eliminate his 28 gun control measures at preventing people who shouldn't have guns, not people ought to have the right according to the second amendment. >> host: before getting to the solutions i want to discuss in detail. we skipped over the rulings. where does the second amendment stand now? be set in your book you agreed with the heller decision by justice scully at that site is an individual on related in the militia, but you thought they came up with the right result for the wrong reasons. >> guest: i do agree it's an individual right and history shows that. with the decision said this first of all it's inconsistent. at one point, scully is opinion says quoting the cruickshank decision, as we have said previously, it is not a right granted by the constitution. a few paragraphs later says the

second amendment conferred the right. how can that be great to buy the constitution that the second amendment confers the right. and it is primarily about self-defense. nowhere in debates about the second amendment in the 18th century do you find much emphasis on individual self-defense as we said previously that's not the reason for it. that's not the reason why the second amendment was written and put into bill of rights. so the reasoning is specious, but the conclusion is valid. so then what do you do? escalator goes on to say, that doesn't mean it can't be regulated. long-standing regulations for you can't take guns into schools i'm not saying.

>> guest: >> host: you can see guns, how they're stored in the unfair. >> guest: bay. and that ruling was basically extended to the states in 2010 in chicago case. mcdonald was a black man who wanted to have a firearm. >> host: actually had a firearm. he likely had a shotgun. he wanted a pistol, too. >> guest: in couldn't because they were struck closely to 11 in the district and the corresponding 2010 that had to go with the one district to ban handguns. >> host: one than in this day and age he could make an argument with a valid question is the difference is that really make except in d.c. and chicago? nobody was rushing out to pass new gun-control laws. mayor bloomberg of new york, hillary clinton, barack obama said it was an individual right.

75% of the american people, probably 95% of politicians including liberal politicians thought it was. other than getting rid of the d.c. about in the chicago, what difference did it make? >> guest: that's interesting. to me that's a surprise because gun-control advocates eresting. to me that's a surprise because gun-control advocates said after both those decisions they would be a tsunami was the word that was used for challenges to gun control regulations. other than some, but certainly not a tidal wave of them. they have mostly succeeded. here the district they passed and decided on a new set of regulations that still ban assault weapons and make it necessary you have to show that you now how do gun and could store it safely and you have to register and so on.

there is a challenge to that but i don't think it's been resolved yet. >> host: in a couple hundred lawsuits across the country. but almost everyone of them has upheld the laws. >> guest: they overthrew because of how to admit donald. >> host: so you've got this second amendment and one amendment was arguing how many can be inside the head of the pain. are there things we can do to make our communities safer? tackiness amir in fort wayne, indiana, republican with rising crime, pushing for stronger laws, but also releasing we made it too easy for dangerous people to get guns and sometimes they're a outgunning police department. so that sort of fits to raise gone with the boat.

>> guest: what we need to do is have that discussion instead of what usually happens after an atrocity like i were a is politicians on all sides support the violent dundas and we move on to wait for the next one. in new york city, mayor bloomberg of course is one of the head of mayors against illegal guns, which the nra has described as his first enemy. >> guest: mayor bloomberg from new york started it. >> guest: this undeniably violence that nobody can deny it. unfortunately, nobody's talking very much about what can be done constitutionally and legally to make it less violent, less prevalent as it is now. i think that's what we need to

do. obama and romney came close to it. they touched on it i should say. there was one common ground they found, which may form a newspaper, the times dismissed as meaningless. well, it's not meaningless. if you're going to change the way because people commit gun violence, not the guns themselves. i do get the behavior that leads people to resort to guns in troubled neighborhoods of mercedes. a new yorker community cards people townspeople stash and fire hydrants were strictly and. you could do something about that. you could pass a law, for instance, that post a heavy penalty on using a community going. in 2006 race the minimum sentence for having a loaded illegal gun to three and a half years.

i think you could rate even higher. that might make it clear to people who provide guns illegally to people who can't buy them because their names are on that list in washington and west virginia, and ics list. >> host: that's the list access when you do a background check. >> guest: right. often criminals get around not thanking somebody else today going for them at a gun show. that's another thing that can be changed. it's not just gun shows where you can buy a gun from a private seller without going to the background check system, but about 40% of gun sales are conducted without a background check because you're not buying from effective licensed dealer. >> host: i think it's important because one of the barriers to the discussion is a

lot of folks don't almost worked. one thing i point out is we don't have that many gun-control laws on the books others that restrictions on fully automatic's. not that many of the state level that much different. stay for restrictions on fully automatic's cover requirement to do the background check. that's basically it. that means if you are buying from your next-door neighbor, they are much ado about ground check. that becomes a private seller exemption, which is often exploited at gun shows, where someone will set up week after week and so a hundred guns and never do a background check. >> guest: the batteries fiercely opposed to it. >> host: by what they oppose that? >> guest: any restriction on the unfettered freedom to own and use a gun.

>> host: clearly should be constitutional. >> guest: they've upheld the system itself. it's just a loophole that it doesn't apply to private sales. i think that is certainly one area where you could find common ground. how could the nra opposed convincingly regulations aimed at keeping people that criminals at keeping people that criminals from acquiring guns? nothing supports of people like this. the nra says don't make new gun-control nations. of course the laws against criminals and that should be something we could agree on. posts are what we need a stronger definitions are regulations. purchasers from 1968 says drug out of it or some such phrase,

but it doesn't define how you treat that. if anyone who ever used drugs in this country where he prohibited purchaser, we'd have a lot less guns legally available to people. mentally ill is the major one. >> guest: that's a similar issue there. i recognize the sensitivity. i know people myself who have had mental problems and dealt with them in the blanket prohibition against having a gun is something you want to think about very carefully. >> host: that's not what most people are talking about. after virginia tech when the brady center discovered a court in virginia had found him to be a danger to himself or others, but the state of virginia had sent the information in because he hadn't been ordered. he wasn't committed. that shows a major loophole. they found after that the new york state only sent in for

names of people dangerously mentally ill. my home state sent in zero. >> host: i know more than four people in new york that are dangerous to mentally ill. there was a gun control past in 08 but the incentives to state. >> guest: there's no compliance as a senator from new york keeps trying to withhold money from states for various purposes unless they provide for names to these lists. >> guest: the issues are cleaningues are cleaning up to make it harder for people we agree are dangerous to get guns and the favorite going in your book argues that. part of that gets into better definition and making sure those records have that background

check >> other groups like it. they have a stranglehold of issues like this. legislatures ought to think twice before they pass and enable people to kill people were easter play. >> let the jury decide what happens there. you pass a lot that make it easier to kill people. criminals take advantage of buffalo, too. not just you who think your danger of being attacked. they stand your ground and dr. miles. >> guest: there's always been a right to self defense.

what these laws still in so many cases is take away the discussion of the prosecutor to charge. >> guest: whose interest is faster? >> guest: i didn't conduct a survey of nationwide gunowners, but people with long guns that i talked with, i found very often the reaction coming your way of thinking before and after you've got a gun is very different. any law abiding gun owner realizes when he's got a gun, he or she, that it's a huge responsibility. if you suspect an irresponsibly or wrongly, you could get yourself in legal trouble. you could cause unnecessary misery and death even. he didn't intend to do harm to

you. i think i would make people more careful if you had to pass a test before they get a license to buy. >> host: one of the weaknesses in your book is dealing with this consequence is. living with guns shouldn't be living and dying with guns. you talk with people that enjoy gun shows that are gun enthusiasts. i don't think you talk to anybody in the book could penetrate victim of gun violence. >> guest: the brady campaign

has done so much to get people like that a voice. i didn't intend to ignore the problem. but if you look at the 30,000 a year figure people who died, and many thousands more injured by guns every year. half of them are suicides. our gun violence rate in this country is very high. it's much higher than european countries that have strict gun control, but our fatal assault rate is higher excluding guns that most european countries including guns is. america is in more violence prone society than any european today is. a lot of that has to do with their history and makeup that

mentality. but yes, 30,000 is way too many and 13,000 deaths is way too many that we have to discuss as many weeks as we can to bring it down. i don't think were ever going to eliminate it entirely though. >> host: one of the things you suggest talking about stricter penalties and we've covered both of those. you mentioned licensing and registration. we touched on that briefly, but that is something that does generally get people's attention. >> guest: i would go back to the history and people want to say we've heard he had gun registration. it's just been on a local level. the second amendment and court decisions surrounding it make it clear that the federal government should be the agency that registers guns. in fact, laws congress has passed forbidding it. some states permit registering

guns. why is that? it's been a thing. it's part of the hysteria created by the extreme gun rights groups about any gun regulation is the first step toward seizing your guns and destroy your freedom to own and use firearms. while it's not. it's sensible. you register cars. they can kill people too. the primary purpose isn't to kill people i like it is the primary purpose of handguns. >> guest: a lot of people 3 >> guest: a lot of people come if i'm going to sell my car to my next-door neighbor, he still got to go through the governmental paper or transfer the official title of the car. the car has to be registered. if i get in an accident with a car, somebody's going to analyze why the accident happened and eventually do we need stricter

rules on drunk driving or distracted driving or texting while driving or maybe worth of a salty, citing faulty, kara faulk? does several things to look at when we look at auto accidents. going from individual responsibility to design of the car decided to rose. with guns there's a congressional law that forbids the federal government from regulating the way guns work to make sure they operate safely. poster how does that make sense? >> guest: it doesn't make sense. sometimes it's a person can kill people, too. >> guest: cannot see what federal regulation rules would apply to kind any fractures to make us safer to operate guns. there's no threat to the second amendment, but right now it's congressional law.

>> host: it amazes me the restrictions. i don't think people realize that the center for disease control is restricted on what they can look into in terms of gun violence. the national institute of health is too strict day. the alcohol tobacco and firearms is good and what records they can keep in who they can share them with. this is all if you assume. >> guest: law enforcement is nothing to reduce gun violence. >> host: when we started looking at tobacco and the cost reassertion general statement and lawsuits against gun manufacturers are banned by congress, too. >> host: >> guest: is irresponsible and it's on again. i hope to do it to intelligently about our gun violence problem in what we can do about it and not fall back into the hysteria that gun control means to take in the freedom to have guns

away. how do you have done some work with him safely, more safely than we do now? >> host: is the book addressed to liberals are gun owners or higher elected officials? >> guest: anybody who will read it i hope. i find a lot of my liberal friends that i think probably mayor bloomberg is so preoccupied with the problem of gun violence in the city that he thinks hillary to do just keep cracking down harder on everybody's ability to acquire firearms. new york city's laws are almost as strict as they were in the district of columbia. poster the loss in new york and i know you get into this one about do with the conceal carry laws, who has the right to get a permit to carry a gun and how do you think that should be handled? >> guest: in general, all gun legislation on who can own guns

aside from what was talked about before, but under what circumstances and when you carry it when you don't should all be as local as possible. people in new york the different worlds and people in new york city, then people in montana or texas probably. they are best able to decide what kind of roles they should have. unfortunately the latter state, the gun lobby has made it possible, impossible for local jurisdictions to make their own rules. how did the state legislatures said in the capital of this day. posted the state legislatures said you couldn't have any laws. >> guest: that's outrageous and defend linking. if hysteria that produces bauxite. it is not clear thinking about the problem we have and how we can intelligently deal with it.

>> host: to touch briefly and i don't think you've got into it too much of the book, but the court case talk about the gun in the home for self-defense. when you get to conceal to carry, we talk about taking a gun into the public view and in a lot of states there's precious after a shooting at virginia tech we should have guns in the classroom for guns in more places. where is that outgoing about makes sense? >> guest: you hear that after every large-scale mass shooting. armed people carrying guns in the crowd around congress differs at the movie theater. poster there was a guy carrying his gun and as you the book he rounded the corner and a dirty tackle the shooter because the large capacity clippard out of bullets. he was quoted as saying he would've shut the bad guy, but

he did know who the bad guy list. >> guest: announced the problem. if you ask any police officer, i do you feel about going into a bar or restaurant for somebody's enough people and people who might be victims are shooting back, how do the situation? and anyway, one of the things that is mistaking me that people often assume about guns for self protection is it would help me to have a gun in my home next day bed for self protection. okay coming from producer breaks into your house in your sleep, how are you going to get your gun and make sure the weapon is chambered? fire and improperly? your thinking magic if you think that's going to happen on demonically. >> host: one of the things in their study showed people argue

all the time, but a gun in your home is 21 times more likely to be used against you or a family member that it is to protect you a nice because someone might use it for suicide but i never next-door or you might wake up and is your brother-in-law. people talk about risk and responsibilities. >> guest: they think it's easy to sit down properly. poster one of the important things to start facilities and risks then we need to dialogue. too much of the time of its bob costas kidded tripler doctors in florida or the military saying they can't talk about it were people going hysterical, we need to do with this issue. >> guest: we do what i hope we will. so far so to come. >> host: i've always felt that the gun-control side who want to talk, but i want to try anything to get them to the table.

thank you for writing the book and hopefully we can get the word out. >> guest: thank you for the discussion. >> dallas "after words" in which authors of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed by journalists, public policymakers, legislators and others familiar with material. "after words" airs every week and on booktv, 10:00 p.m. on saturday, 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. sunday at 12:00 a.m. on monday. you can also watch online. go to booktv.org and click on afterwards and mysterious and topics list only if the recited page. >> you don't always find many newspaper editors embracing investigative reporting. the point be seen over the years is not just economics.

it's a discomfort investigative reporting causes in the newsroom because his troubled son. it's that or the economics. if you ruffle the feathers of someone powerful, that gets people writing in to complain to the publisher and stories over the years about those things happening. donna and i were fortunate to 70s and almost all her career to work for people who are strong enough right in that area and let the chips fall where they may, where the workload you. >> we're going to break away from our weekend of booktv programming to take you back to the floor of the u.s. senate.